Re: <nettime> WG: Fwd: Re: Forms of decisionism

[Alex Foti <alex.foti@gmail.com>]

   I totally agree you have to look at productivity distribution regimes
   (in this boyer-coriat supplemented perez-freeman) - in 1950-1973 it was
   basically productivity growth out of taylorized assemly-line operation
   going to wages (in the US, for Germany, Japan and other laggards it
   kept prices low and enable export-led growth and catch up) - then the
   1973-1979 �last spell of working class insurgence and stagflation -
   Fordist accumulation and Keynesian regulation end in inflatio.� With
   the 1979-1983 monetarist recession and attendant deindustrialization,
   the mutation of the economy starts toward informationalism. The
   productivity growth regime under informationalism is radically
   different than under mature fordism: productivity now goes either goes
   to profits or in falling prices (or a combination of the two) but not
   to wages (the great stagnation). neoliberalism doesn't deliver the
   goods - if you're a wage earner you have buy em on credit. i submit the
   hypothesis that that the structural cause of the demand crisis you
   rightly see as the dominant factor in the Great Recession is in fact
   the inability of neoliberal (de)regulation of distributing the fruits
   of technological progress to the population at large, unlike Fordism.
   However i completely disagree with the the neostagnationist idea (� la
   Hansen) that demand is now saturated and there is no way to kickstart
   effective demand and take the economy out of the doldrums where
   wrong-headed policies have moored it for 8 years already. Poverty and
   malnutrition are plaguing even western cities. College attendance is
   falling due to rising costs. Mass youth unemployment is a reality.
   There's huge need of investment in environmental remediation and public
   health. Fact is we haven't tried fiscal expansion on the post-WWII
   scale. Put money in the pockets of the precarious youth and make higher
   education cheap or free and the economy will recover for real. High
   concentration of wealth and income is enemy economic health: it was
   true in the 1920s, it's true in the 2010s.�
   On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 7:12 PM, Dr. Ludger Eversmann <Ludger.Eversmann@t-online.de> wrote:

        Hi all,

        let me shortly introduce myself: I worked on this field of cultural and
        technological progress since my doctoral dissertation in Business
        Information Systems Engineering in 2002, with focal point on all these
        resulting questions when it is assumed that technological progress is
        stepping on and possibly set to a maximum; questions like where
        actually is a limit to automation (calculable mashines), it it
        justified to replace human work by mashines, how, what are the
        conditions, which socioeconic conditions could highly developed
        industrial production systems lead to.


#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: